|
1) Summary of EC DG VII COMMUTE
Project
COMMUTE
was a research project that ran from 1996 to 1999 within the Strategic Research
strand of the European Commission Fourth Framework Transport RTD programme. It addressed the definition of a methodology
for strategic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy
options. The methodology was intended to be primarily applicable to policy
decision-making at the European level and to cover road, rail, air and
waterborne transport modes. Computer software that embodies the main aspects of
the methodology was developed and demonstrated within the COMMUTE project.
The main COMMUTE project
objectives were as follows:
· To
define a methodology for strategic assessment of the environmental impacts of
transport policy options, to support transport policy decision making at the
European level.
· To
develop computer software that embodied the main aspects of the methodology and
could present the results to users.
· To
demonstrate the use of the main aspects of the methodology and the computer
software; in particular in the context of a pilot strategic environmental
assessment of the impacts on energy consumption, primary pollutant emissions
and safety of plans for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).
COMMUTE delivered two main end
products:
·
The COMMUTE
methodology for SEA of transport policies, plans and programmes (PPPs), comprising:
–
A Framework for SEA covering the basic
methodological requirements for SEA of multi-modal transport actions and
guidelines on integration methods
–
Detailed impact assessment methods for some core
impacts such as air pollution emissions, energy consumption, noise and safety
·
The COMMUTE
software tool allowing assessment of air pollution emissions, energy
consumption, noise and safety impacts.
The COMMUTE Framework for SEA provides detailed guidelines
for carrying out a strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and sets the use
of the COMMUTE software tool in context. The full guidelines run to some 160
pages, and are structured according to the following steps, around which an SEA
should be organised from the procedural point of view:
1. Setting of objectives and targets
2. Screening to determine the need for
SEA at this stage of the planning process
3. Scoping: identification of:
·
the physical/regional limits;
·
the impacts to be addressed;
·
the alternative actions that need to be assessed.
4. Carrying out of the SEA:
·
measuring/predicting the environmental impact of the action and its
alternatives;
·
evaluating the significance of the impact (e.g. through comparison with
environmental objectives);
·
proposing recommendations: preferred alternative, mitigation and
monitoring measures.
5. Preparation of the decision
6. Taking the decision
7. Making arrangements for monitoring
and follow-up
8. Conducting further environmental
assessments (at later stages of planning process, e.g. project EIA)
The overall COMMUTE methodology defined a range of
environmental indicators for examination within an SEA. The detailed impact
assessment methods defined in COMMUTE and incorporated in the software tool
cover assessment of air pollution emissions, energy consumption, noise and
safety, across four travel modes – road, rail, air and water. These are described in the main body of the
report.
Impact assessment methods for other indicators included in
the COMMUTE methodology (but not the current software) were described in detail
within the COMMUTE Framework guidelines.
These could be brought in to the COMMUTE software tool in a future
development effort.
The COMMUTE software tool was
developed to be primarily applicable to policy decision-making and is targeted
primarily on relatively large scale analyses at European, national or regional
scales. The tool is network oriented and
works on assessments on links and nodes. The impacts are calculated on a
link-by-link and node-by node basis and then added together for assessments of
networks or corridors comprising a number of links and nodes.
The tool
uses a Geographical Information System (GIS) for handling the geographical
representation of the network and for performing spatial oriented analysis and
for presentation purposes.
The
COMMUTE software tool was validated against other comparable data sets, and was
demonstrated within the project, particularly through the pilot SEA of plans
for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). This formed a rigorous,
highly demanding and large scale demonstration of the capabilities of the
COMMUTE software tool and illustrated its interfacing with a complex transport
model. The results were sufficiently
robust for the study team to conclude that the method would be suitable for a
more detailed SEA of the TEN-T.
Overall, the COMMUTE project
successfully achieved its main objectives and has clear potential for future
exploitation. From the work carried out
in COMMUTE, it is clear, however, that further work would be beneficial in a
number of areas, including:
·
further methodological research to integrate
sustainability target setting within the overall SEA process and to improve
monitoring and follow-up after implementation of policies, plans and
programmes;
·
further development of the COMMUTE tool to bring in
additional impact areas (particularly through the GIS interface) and accommodate
other stages of the overall SEA process;
·
further data
collection to improve strengthen input and default data across all modes and
therefore improve the accuracy and robustness of the COMMUTE tool outputs.
2) Cooperation on
pilot SEA of the TEN-T
In cooperation with the MEET,
STREAMS and SCENARIOS projects, COMMUTE accomplished a pilot strategic
assessment of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). This was a major demonstration of the COMMUTE
software tool and methodology. The aim of this work was to obtain an indication
of the impacts of plans for the TEN-T, including their broad geographical
distributions, in terms of energy consumption, emissions and traffic safety.
The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of the developed methods, including the
extent to which the approach used in the pilot project would be suitable for a
full SEA of the TEN-T.
For successful
completion of the pilot SEA a harmonious cooperation between the projects was
essential. Therefore a Joint Scientific Committee was established, chaired by
representatives of the STREAMS project and containing a representative from
each project. Representatives from the
Commission and the European Environmental Agency also sat in the Joint Scientific
Committee. A cooperation plan was set up
to ensure a trouble-free implementation.
The basic allocation of the work was for the STREAMS
partners to undertake runs of the STREAMS model, according to reference and
Common Transport Policy scenarios as defined (in quantitative terms) by
SCENARIOS. The STREAMS transport model outputs were provided to COMMUTE who
then used the COMMUTE tool to calculate energy consumption and emissions, with
assistance from MEET in terms of the assumptions to be made for the calculation
of future emissions, both for road and non-road transport. Estimates of traffic
safety impacts were made jointly by STREAMS and COMMUTE.
3) THE COMMUTE
SOFTWARE TOOL
The
COMMUTE software tool embodies the impact assessment methods for the primary
pollutant emissions, energy consumption, noise and safety across the transport
modes road, rail, air and waterborne transport.
However, it is also designed for future expansion to cover other
important land use and ecological impacts.
The COMMUTE software is
primarily applicable to policy decision-making and it is based on relatively
large scale spatial resolutions. The
tool focuses on assessing the environmental impacts of Programmes, Policies and
Plans (PPPs) at:
· European
level (i.e. assessing impacts of PPPs for the whole
of the EU)
· National
level (i.e. assessing impacts of PPPs for individual
countries)
· Regional
level (i.e. assessing impacts of PPPs for large
administrative regions (e.g. NUTS 2) or for regional scale corridors)
The tool
is network oriented and works on assessments on links and nodes. The impacts
are calculated on a link-by-link and node-by node basis and then added together
for assessments of networks or corridors comprising a number of links and
nodes. In this context urban areas, harbours and
airports are represented as nodes in the network. These nodes could then each
have traffic flow data associated with them within the tool that would cover
the whole area (e.g. vehicle-km figures and an average speed for a whole city
in the case of road transport).
This approach
does not include explicit representation of the urban transport network within
each urban area. It therefore allows assessment of policies that have an impact
in urban areas (e.g. policies that encourage modal shift for urban travel) but
would not be suitable for assessment of urban infrastructure programmes. Such
assessments would need to be conducted using a more detailed urban scale model.
The tool
uses a Geographical Information System (GIS) for handling the geographical
representation of the network and for performing spatial oriented analysis and
presentation purposes.
The
finest level of temporal resolution that the tool will focus on is provision of
seasonal impacts, with the main emphasis being on calculating and presenting
annual impacts.
The
final version of the COMMUTE tool includes a life cycle analysis approach in so
far as emissions of harmful substances and energy consumption from power
stations and refineries will be considered additionally to those from vehicle
operation.
For the
different impacts across transport modes a specific module or model has been
designed, but each module is independent and separated from the others.
The software is modular and the
database has not only the function of storing the data but also of integrating
the models.
The user interfaces the program
through the Human Machine Interface which has been developed using a commercial
Geographical Information System.
To achieve user-friendliness,
the COMMUTE software was developed in the well known Windows 95 environment.
Wherever possible, well known commercial tools were used instead of developing
new and proprietary codes. The architecture of the software was designed to be
flexible, easy to maintain and capable of accommodating future development. In
fact the software has a modular structure.
For the
different impacts across transport modes a specific model and module has been
designed (ACCESS BASIC). Each module
(model) is independent and the integration is made through the database
(ACCESS) and the Human Machine Interface (ACCESS BASIC).
MAPINFO
has been selected as the Geographical Information System, because of its
quality to be one of the most used and inexpensive GIS and because it is
integrated with Microsoft and offers a simple toolkit in Basic (MapBasic).
It is essential to be able to
add or change models without changing the overall architecture or the existing
modules.
The
software structure consists of six parts:
1.
The HMI (human machine interface) which allows the
user to interface with the tool
2.
The GIS which represents the data (input and
output) in a geo-referenced form
3.
The DATA MANAGER which manages the database and
provides the input-output functions
4.
The different MODELS/modules which provide the
environmental results
5.
The CONFIGURATION MANAGER which allows the user to
configure the scenarios (year..)
6.
The MANAGER OF MODELS which schedules the run of
the different modules
Each
model, such as the ’road emission and consumption’ or the ’rail safety’ etc.,
is a separate module and it has a proprietary code written in a collective
language.
The
modular structure of the software together with the fact that a standard
commercial database management system has been used allows the user to
interface the data also with other tools such as Excel or ARCINFO.
Each model is composed of two
main parts: the calculus itself that comprises the reading and writing of the
database data, and the configuration that requires an HMI to interface with the
user in order to assess the configuration of the scenario that the model will
run.
Figure 1 shows that the model takes the inputs as they are
in the database and prepares the data as required by the “core model” which is
the calculator module that assesses the environment. The post module takes the outputs as they are
calculated by the “core model” and aggregates or disagregates
them as they will be shown to the user of the program.
%20%20ENEA_files/image002.gif)
Figure 1 Structure of each
COMMUTE module/model
Both input and output data are contained in the database.
The user has the option to create scenarios and to compare calculation results
with the a priori information.
According to the software
architecture the database is integrated. Wherever possible the model uses the same
data, so that some data of the database is common, while some data is specific
to each of the models. The common data
is really important for the harmonisation and integration of the models.
The COMMUTE database is organised in Microsoft ACCESS
tables in order to allow the user to analyse results in an easy-to-use and
flexible environment. To perform the
calculations for the different impacts across the transport modes, the COMMUTE
software tool needs several types of tables which are classified according to
the source and nature of the data they contain.
The tables can be categorised as either input tables which contain all
the data necessary for the calculation of the results, or output tables which
contain the results of the software elaboration.
The “COMMUTE main menu” screen
presents the software tool user with three different sections, as shown in
Figure 2.
%20%20ENEA_files/image004.gif)
Figure 2 The COMMUTE main menu screen
The first section is for calculation and reflects the approach
of the COMMUTE methodology. The main
subdivision is for impacts: emission & consumption, noise, safety. Each impact is calculated for the different
modes of transport: air, road, rail, and water. All the calculation modules are
integrated and the commonalties are grouped in an integration core which
consists of the common shared set of classification tables (i.e. the list of
the countries, the list of the fuels considered etc.) and coefficient tables
(i.e. the calorific power of the fuels). This allows a comparison of results
among different modes on a user defined multi-modal network scenario.
4) Pilot Strategic Environmental Assessment of the TEN-T
Proposals
The main demonstration of the
application of COMMUTE tool involved the cooperative strategic environmental
assessment of plans for the whole Trans-European Transport Network
(TEN-T). The Commission wanted to carry
out a pilot SEA of the TEN-T to assess its impact on the transport system and
on emission levels. The project had two aims. First, to provide an initial attempt
at quantifying the impacts of the TEN-T, in terms of travel patterns, energy
consumption, emissions and transport safety. Second, to demonstrate the
feasibility of certain methods, including the extent to which the approach used
in the pilot would be suitable for a full SEA of the TEN-T.
When setting up the project the
Commission wanted to draw on its latest research and to bring together
researchers from different disciplines. A new consortium was formed, within the
structure of the EU Fourth Framework research programme, to carry out the
work. This consortium involved four
existing research projects, SCENARIOS, STREAMS, MEET and COMMUTE.
The
pilot SEA constituted a rigorous and large-scale demonstration of the COMMUTE
tool. The multi modal network used for
the exercise consisted of approximately:
· 7000
links for road
· 1300
links for air transport
· 2400
links for rail
· 2900
links for waterborne transport
For the pilot SEA, only part of
the SEA processes included in the COMMUTE Framework for SEA needed to be
considered. The wider issues surrounding the development of the TEN-T were not
relevant to this study, where the emphasis was on impact assessment. The
approach used in the pilot SEA was to undertake an impact assessment of the
TEN-T by comparing transport scenarios, forecasting travel patterns, and
focussing on the emissions (using the COMMUTE software) generated by these
alternative scenarios.
4.1 COMMUTE tool in pilot SEA
Because of constraints on the
timing of the pilot SEA project, it was necessary to prepare an intermediate
version of the COMMUTE tool which embodied the main parts of the impact
assessment methods. However not all modules of the full final version of
COMMUTE tool were included in this interim version. The following main
differences in functionality between the intermediate and full version of the
tool occurred (there were also other minor differences, for example that the
impact of road gradients was not considered):
·
safety assessment was limited to the single risk
method
·
cold start and evaporative emissions for road
transport were calculated outside the COMMUTE model using approximate
correction factors
·
no noise assessment was included - noise was not
part of the Commission’s pilot SEA requirements
·
only one ‘generic’ aircraft type was used
4.2 STREAMS/COMMUTE Interface
The combination of the STREAMS
and COMMUTE methodologies for the pilot SEA project brought a requirement to
find a consistent and manageable approach for the exchange of data between
these two main elements of the project. The fundamental interface was between
the output of the STREAMS transport model which in turn forms the input to the
COMMUTE/pilot SEA methodology for determining energy, emissions and safety
levels. Agreement was required between the two projects regarding the
categorisation and definitions of the transport data transferred to COMMUTE.
For example, there are different categories within each mode of transport in
the two projects. The task was therefore to reconcile the two and determine a
set of definitions which were consistent with the two projects, and this was
achieved. A number of modifications were
required to the STREAMS model in order to allow the COMMUTE methodology to be
successfully applied for pilot SEA. This principally affected the form of the
model output, and the processing of output outside the modelling environment.
4.3 Scenarios tested
In the context of the SEA work, a
transport scenario defines the main inputs needed for the STREAMS transport
model forecasts. The policy scenarios determine the changes in transport costs
and prices for each mode between 1994 and 2010. They are made up of three
policy phases:
· Liberalisation: relating to the current policy
trends (the ‘reference’ situation).
· Harmonisation: concerning the impact of the Common Transport Policy (CTP),
principally in terms of harmonisation including the internalisation of
externalities.
· TEN-T Infrastructure and Policy: relating to the promotion of
inter-modality, interconnectivity and interoperability for the TEN-T. The
policy changes are only introduced in tests which have the TEN-T in the
forecast year network.
A number of possible options were
considered before arriving at the following tests combining the reference, CTP
and TEN-T policy and infrastructure components defined above:
1 Base year
- 1994
2 No TEN-T for reference scenario 2010
3 No TEN-T for CTP 2010
4 All TEN-T policy and infrastructure for CTP
2010
5 Rail only TEN-T policy and rail
infrastructure for CTP 2010
Each of the future year tests therefore contain some
combination of the three policy phases (liberalisation, harmonisation and TEN-T
policy and infrastructure) as shown in Table1 below.
Table 1: Components of the SEA tests
|
Options
to be tested
|
Reference
(liberalisation)
|
CTP
(harmonisation)
|
TEN
policy and infrastructure
|
|
1. Base year – 1994
|
|
|
|
|
2. ‘Reference
Scenario’
No TEN-T for reference
scenario 2010
|
x
|
|
|
|
3. ‘CTP Only’
No TEN-T for CTP test 2010
|
x
|
x
|
|
|
4. ‘All TEN-T CTP’
All TEN-T for CTP test 2010
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
|
5. ‘Rail TEN-T CTP’
Rail only for CTP test 2010
|
x
|
x
|
x
(rail
only)
|
4.4 Results
The main
results of the pilot SEA exercise are summarised in this section, from the full
report prepared jointly by the STREAMS and COMMUTE projects. These include the transport model outputs
from STREAMS, as well as the COMMUTE software tool outputs. The full results are presented in the
STREAMS/COMMUTE Pilot SEA Deliverable 4.
In
addition to these outputs (Tables and Figures) the COMMUTE final report presents some
examples of thematic maps produced by using the MapInfo GIS. These maps provide
an overview about the possibilities of a detailed spatial analysis of traffic
and emission data as they were produced in the Pilot Strategic Environmental
Assessment of the TEN-T.
Taking
the transport impacts first, in the 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’ there is an
increase in overall passenger travel demand compared to the base for all modes
except slow modes and freight rail, driven partly by the falling cost of travel
relative to incomes.
Moving
to the impact of the policies, the effect of the ‘CTP Only’ compared to the
‘Reference Scenario’ was:
·
a significant overall reduction in passenger and
freight travel, more so for freight
·
rising rail demand and falling car, truck, air and
water use
·
a reduction in road network congestion
·
the ‘CTP Only’
scenario therefore succeeds in reducing road and air travel and boosting rail.
Then,
introducing all the TEN-T infrastructure and related policies led to:
·
increased overall passenger and freight travel
demand relative to the ‘CTP Only’ scenario (although it is still lower than in
the ‘Reference Scenario’ for passengers)
·
a significant effect on mode split as rail
(particularly high speed rail) travel increases compared to the ‘CTP Only’
scenario and road travel falls further
·
further reduction in road network congestion
·
the TEN-T
infrastructure and related policies scenario therefore strengthens the effects
of the CTP.
By
introducing only rail TEN-T infrastructure but with related TEN-T policies on
inter-modality, interoperability and connections to ports, rail’s gains are
increased, although at the cost of a significant increase in road congestion.
It is
also significant that the most important factor in encouraging freight mode
shift to rail is the expanded rail network. The effects of this are large, with
or without the road TEN-T.
The key
findings of the emission forecasts using the COMMUTE tool, by mode, are:
For road: Tighter road vehicle emission
standards and improved technology outweigh the growth in road travel, such that
all emissions except CO2 fall in all four tests compared to the base
year. The differences between tests are relatively small illustrating the
dominance of changes in non-traffic factors. The tests do not include the
impact of the car manufacturers’ voluntary agreement on CO2,
hence they may overestimate the increase in CO2 emissions;
For rail: Between 1994 and 2010 all non
CO2 emissions fall, reflecting technical change and a shift from
diesel to electric power. For the tests, the changes in emissions mirror the
changes in train-kilometres;
For air: All emissions rise in all tests
relative to the base year and there are some differences between tests
reflecting the changes in the amount of passenger air travel. Hence emissions
are closely correlated with the level of air travel (unlike the case for cars).
Although there are technological improvements in aircraft technology the key
effect appears to be a growth in shorter distance air travel between the base
and forecast years; as relatively more fuel is used in the take-off, climb and
climb-out phases of the flight compared with cruising, this has a
disproportionate impact;
For water: All emissions rise for each
test relative to the base year. The IMO limits on exhaust emissions for new
engines are not expected to result in any large changes before 2010, because of
the slow turnover of the fleet. Hence emissions are closely correlated with the
level of waterborne freight
The main
conclusions by emission type are:
For CO2: Tonnes
of CO2 rise between 1994 and the 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’, but the
‘CTP Only’ and both TEN-T scenarios reduce CO2 compared to the
reference;
For CO and HC: These emissions derive
mainly from road vehicles. The 2010 ‘Reference Scenario’ emissions are lower
than 1994, and the alternative tests show further reductions. The ‘Rail TEN-T
CTP’ test shows the greatest reductions since the road TEN-T is not
implemented;
For SO2: 2010
‘Reference Scenario’ emissions are higher than 1994 and the alternative tests
reduce these levels. Emissions of SO2 are considered only for the
non-road modes;
For NOx and PM: The
emission levels in 1994 were largely dominated by the road modes. There are
substantial reductions in 2010 arising from the reductions in the road modes
which more than compensate for increases in other modes. The percentage
contribution from the road modes in 2010 is greatly reduced and there is a
dramatic growth in emissions from waterborne travel.
4.5 Conclusions
The
pilot SEA study broke new ground in the analysis of EU transport demand and
emissions outputs. It formed a rigorous,
highly demanding and large scale demonstration of the capabilities of the
COMMUTE software tool and illustrated its interfacing with a complex transport
model. The pilot SEA approach provided the first comprehensive, quantified
forecasts of the impacts of TEN-T policies and infrastructure, on travel demand
and emissions, at the EU level. Hence the first objective of the project was
met. The results were sufficiently robust for the study team to conclude that
the method would be suitable for a more detailed SEA of the TEN-T.
5)
references
- Harmonisation
of multi-modal and multi-impact methodology for the environmental
assessment of European Transport Policies – Results from EU DG VII COMMUTE
Project – by E. Negrenti and M.P. Valentini ENEA
ITALY – 19th ARRB Conference – Sydney – December 1998.
·
The Assessment of environmental and
safety impacts of the trasn European network (TEN-T)
– by H.J.Heich, J. Jantunen,
E. Negrenti - Highway and Urban Pollution – Baveno (I) May 1998.- published in the Science of the Total
Environment 235 (1999) 391-393
- Application
of advanced transport impacts models on national and local scale: results
from EC Commute, Esteem and Hesaid projects -
Dr. Emanuele Negrenti
– ENEA – Italy - Melbourne - 20th
ARRB Conference -
March 2001 – Conference
Proceedings – ISBN 0 86910 799 2 – ISSN 0572 1431
- COMMUTE (1997). A Review of User Requirements,
Methods and Methodologies for Strategic Environmental Assessment. COMMUTE
Deliverable 1.
- COMMUTE (1998). Methodology Report. COMMUTE
Deliverable 2.
- COMMUTE (1999). Software Report. COMMUTE
Deliverable 3.
- COMMUTE (2000). Demonstration and
Exploitation. COMMUTE Deliverable 5.
·
DHV (1995). Transport
Strategic Modelling. Final Report Prepared for the Commission of the European
Communities Directorate General for Transport, APAS/Strategic/3.
- EIA Centre – University
of Manchester (1995). Strategic Environmental Assessment -
Legislation and Procedures in the Community. Volume 1 and 2, Manchester.
- EPA (1985). Compilation of air pollutant
emission factors, Vol II Mobile Sources, USA.
- MEET (1996). Methodologies for Estimating Air
Pollutant Emissions from Transport, First Data Structure, Deliverable 2,
DG VII, Edited by Aristotle University, Thessaloniki,
Greece, September 1996.
- MEET (1997a). Methodologies for Estimating Air
Pollutant Emissions from Transport, Final Data Structure of Road Emission
Factors, Deliverable 3, DG VII, Edited by University of Thessaloniki, INRETS, TNO, TSU, TRL, TU, MIRA and
University of Limerick, January 1997.
- MEET (1997b). Methodologies for Estimating Air
Pollutant Emissions from Transport, Road Traffic Characteristics for
Estimating Pollutant Emissions, Deliverable 4, DG VII, Edited by Transport
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK, January
1997.
- MEET/Techne (1997c).
Methodologies For Estimating Air Pollutant
Emissions From Ships. June 1997.
- MEET (1998). Methodologies for Estimating Air
Pollutant Emissions from Transport, Emission Factors and Traffic
Characteristics Data Set, Deliverable 21, Final Report, Edited by the
Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, January 1998.
ANNEX 1 – EXAMPLES
OF MAPS PRODUCED WITH COMMUTE TOOL AND MAPINFO
COMMUTE tool : interface with MapInfo GIS
Selection
of a part of road network for calculation
%20%20ENEA_files/image006.jpg)
Analysis of the results
after calculation
The analysis will be
displayed on the selected links
%20%20ENEA_files/image008.jpg)
Example of thematic analysis
of NOx emissions on selected links
%20%20ENEA_files/image010.jpg)
Display of
traffic data on MapInfo maps (STREAMS data, non urban links, 1995)
These maps are
built with MapInfo tools, by crossing the road network map with the tables of
vehicles*km stored in COMMUTE Access database. A map is done for each category
of vehicles provided in STREAMS data. The analysed value is the number of vehicles, that is vkm/length.
%20%20ENEA_files/image012.jpg)
%20%20ENEA_files/image014.jpg)
%20%20ENEA_files/image016.jpg)
%20%20ENEA_files/image018.jpg)
Examples of thematic maps after calculation of emission, on all
fifteen countries
These examples have been built with MapInfo tools by crossing a map of
Europe countries with tables of CO2 emissions
by country created in COMMUTE Access database.
%20%20ENEA_files/image020.jpg)
Example of thematic map of CO2 emission, for air,
rail and road modes
%20%20ENEA_files/image022.jpg)
|
%20-%20leipzig_rev_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20goteborg_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20goteborg_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Goteborg_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Goteborg_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Goteborg_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20Goteborg_files/image008.jpg)
%20-%20Goteborg_files/image010.jpg)
%20-%20Leipzig%20_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
This map shows the two datasets
needed for an assessment of exposure in %20-%20Bristol_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image006.jpg)
_files/image002.gif)
_files/image004.jpg)
_files/image006.jpg)
_files/image008.jpg)
_files/image010.jpg)
_files/image012.jpg)
_files/image014.jpg)
%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image001.jpg)
The simplest type of sampler used is a dust deposit
sampler constructed from inverted aluminium Frisbees. The aerodynamic shape is important, as any
particulate matter deposited in the Frisbee is not blown out again by the wind.
Water or rain washes the dust into a tube in the centre and into a bottle. The
sample is then analysed in the laboratory for heavy metals.%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image003.gif)
%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
This is an acrylic tube approximately 7 cm long with a cap
at one end that contains a small metal mesh impregnated with triethanolomine. This chemical is very good at absorbing
nitrogen dioxide from the air. The tube is exposed for a two-week period and
then analysed in the laboratory. %20%20-%20Bristol_files/image005.jpg)
A pump draws air though a membrane
filter which collects particulate matter. The filter is exposed for two
weeks and then is analysed for heavy metals by atomic absorption spectroscopy.%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image006.jpg)
These analysers run continuously at a number of sites
monitoring oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3) and particulate
matter (PM10). Real time information is stored on a data logger. Most of the
sites have a modem which enable the data to be
downloaded to a central computer. These analysers are regularly calibrated
using gas of a known concentration.%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image007.jpg)
%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image009.jpg)
Over the past decade there has been a requirement to
locate analysers at roadside locations or “hot-spots” where there is no
suitable building. %20%20-%20Venice_files/image001.gif){kind=small}
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image003.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image005.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image007.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image009.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image011.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image013.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image001.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image008.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image010.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image012.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image014.jpg)
%20%20-%20Padua%20(Venice)_files/image002.jpg)
%20%20-%20Padua%20(Venice)_files/image004.jpg)
%20%20-%20Padua%20(Venice)_files/image005.jpg)
-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
Figure 1
- City of %20-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image006.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.gif)
%20-%20Venice%20e_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Venice%20e_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Venice%20e_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20Venice%20e_files/image008.jpg)
%20-%20Venice%20e_files/image010.jpg)
modelling%20hotspots%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
modelling%20hotspots%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
modelling%20hotspots%20-%20Bristol_files/image006.gif)
modelling%20hotspots%20-%20Bristol_files/image008.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image004.jpg)
%20%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
This example can be found at www.bristol-city.gov.uk/airquality
or www.cerc.co.uk/avon.%20%20-%20Sevilla_files/image002.gif)
%20%20-%20Sevilla_files/image004.gif)
%20%20-%20Sevilla_files/image006.gif)
%20%20-%20Sevilla_files/image008.gif)
%20%20-%20Sevilla_files/image010.gif)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image004.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image006.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image008.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image010.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image012.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image014.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image016.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image018.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image020.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image022.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image024.jpg)
%20%20-%20Oslo_files/image001.gif){kind=small}
%20%20-%20Oslo_files/image002.gif){kind=small}
%20%20-%20Oslo_files/image003.gif){kind=small}
%20%20-%20Oslo_files/image004.gif){kind=small}
= Mye %20%20-%20Oslo_files/image005.gif){kind=small}
= Svært mye %20%20-%20Oslo_files/image006.gif)
%20%20-%20Goteborg_files/image002.jpg)
%20%20-%20Goteborg_files/image003.gif)
The
concentration of air pollution in urban areas depends mainly on local road
emission and meteorological factors as wind velocity and wind direction. A good quality weather forecast important as an input to the
dispersion model. A forecast 12 hours
ahead will make it possible to plan the morning journey in the evening. Also data on the typical
traffic variations during the year / month / week and weekdays or holidays for
the different streets are needed as input. Data on intensity of traffic in real
time, coming from traffic sensors can also be used as input to such a
forecasting system. The intensity can be compared to the statistical traffic
variation and a forecast of traffic intensity can be calculated. The traffic
sensors also detect the speed of the vehicles, of importance since it affects
the emissions from the traffic flow.
%20-%20Oslo-AirQUIS_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Oslo-AirQUIS_files/image004.gif)
%20-%20Oslo-AirQUIS_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20Oslo-AirQUIS_files/image008.jpg)
%20-%20Oslo-AirQUIS_files/image010.jpg)
%20-%20Oslo-AirQUIS_files/image012.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.gif)
The emissions impacts were also estimated based on
predicted changes in traffic volumes, fleet composition and traffic
speeds. These are summarised in the graphs below.%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image007.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image008.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image010.gif)
%20-%20Goteborg%20_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Goteborg%20_files/image003.gif){kind=small}
AB Tefco%20-%20Goteborg%20_files/image005.gif)
%20-%20Goteborg%20_files/image006.gif)
%20-%20Goteborg%20_files/image007.gif)
%20-%20Birmingham%20Measures%20for%20NO2_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
Features of a %20-%20Bristol_files/image003.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image005.jpg)
The
Travel Advice Screen is sited in the public foyer area in Clifton Down shopping
centre that has seating and other facilities such as telephones, children's
rides etc. Due to it's central location, the screen is
just 2 minutes walk from all forms of transport.%20-%20Bristol_files/image006.jpg)
The
info bus is one of the projects recently being progressed under the Vivaldi
European project and integrated travel information centre umbrellas. The aim of
this project was to develop a mobile travel information centre in an electric
minibus to take some of the information available in the info centre in the
city centre to local areas throughout the city.%20-%20Bristol_files/image007.jpg)
10 new
information kiosks are being placed around the city as part of the European
funded Vivaldi project to improve access to information. These kiosks have
been, or will soon be located in: %20-%20Leipzig_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Leipzig_files/image004.jpg)
%20%20Leipzig_files/image002.jpg)
%20Utrecht_files/image002.jpg)
%20Utrecht_files/image004.jpg)
%20Utrecht_files/image006.jpg)
%20Leipzig_files/image002.jpg)
%20Leipzig_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image001.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Birmingham_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Birmingham_files/image004.gif)
_files/image002.jpg)
_files/image004.jpg)
_files/image006.jpg)
ext _files/image001.jpg)
who needed the
river for transporting the groceries to the markets in the city. _files/image002.gif)
_files/image002.jpg)
_files/image004.jpg)
_files/image002.jpg)
_files/image002.jpg)
_files/image004.jpg)
_files/image006.jpg)
_files/image008.jpg)
_files/image002.gif)
_files/image002.gif)
From
2002 the Ministry of Environmental Care made clear the use of LPG would be
discouraged because of the safety risks of LPG. This caused the end of the
production of LPG engines for buses. The municipal Transport Company is now
buying diesel buses.
_files/image001.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image001.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image003.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
%20Leipzig_rev_files/image001.jpg)
%20Leipzig_rev_files/image003.jpg)
-%20Bristol_files/image001.jpg)
Since 2002 Bristol City Council’s Energy Management
Unit (EMU) has been investigating the possibility of developing an on-shore
wind farm next to the Severn Estuary. The area is part of the industial estate
toe the -%20Bristol_files/image003.jpg)
tanks were removed.%20Utrecht_rev_files/image002.jpg)
%20Utrecht_rev_files/image003.gif){kind=small}
%20Leipzig_rev_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image004.gif)
%20-%20Bristol_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20Rome%20-%20ENEA_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Rome%20-%20ENEA_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20Rome%20-%20ENEA_files/image007.gif)
%20-%20Rome%20-%20ENEA_files/image009.jpg)
%20-%20Rome%20-%20ENEA_files/image011.gif)
%20-%20Rome%20-%20ENEA_files/image013.gif)
%20%20Bristol_files/image002.gif)
%20%20Bristol_files/image004.jpg)
%20%20Bristol_files/image006.gif)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image004.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image008.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image010.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image012.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image014.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image016.jpg)
%20-%20ENEA%20-%20ESA_files/image018.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image002.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image004.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image006.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image008.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image010.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image012.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image014.jpg)
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image016.jpg)
Figure 3 – SO2
Long term simulation.
%20Venice%20-%20GAE_files/image018.jpg)
%20-%20Birmingham_files/image002.gif)
%20-%20Birmingham_files/image004.gif)
%20-%20Birmingham_files/image006.gif)
%20-%20Birmingham_files/image008.gif)
%20Birmingham_files/image002.gif)
%20Birmingham_files/image004.gif)
%20Birmingham_files/image006.gif)
%20Birmingham_files/image008.gif)
%20Birmingham_files/image010.gif)
%20%20SEVILLA_rev_files/image002.gif)
%20%20SEVILLA_rev_files/image004.gif)
%20%20SEVILLA_rev_files/image006.gif)
%20-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image005.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image006.jpg)
%20-%20Venice_files/image007.gif){kind=small}
%20-%20Venice_files/image008.gif){kind=small}
%20-%20Venice_files/image010.gif)
%20-%20Venice_files/image012.gif)
%20-%20Venice_files/image014.gif)
The
comparison between predicted and observed benzene mean levels monitored with
passive samplers is displayed in the Figure 3. In the ordinate axis the sites
normal to the ring road are represented, from the farthest northern position
(A3: 100 m far from route) to the farthest southern position (B3). AERMOD
04079, ADMS and CALPUFF show the overestimation of concentrations. The models a
typical bell trend for mean concentration along the sampling sites, while
passive samples show a flat trend.%20%20-%20Venice_files/image002.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image004.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image006.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image008.jpg)
%20%20-%20Venice_files/image010.jpg)
%20ENEA_files/image002.jpg)
%20ENEA_files/image001.gif){kind=small}
%20ENEA_files/image002.gif){kind=small}
